That makes no sense. Kids who watch Netflix get zero ads. Kids who watch commercial television are bombarded with ads.

PBS makes great content with zero ads, aside from a five second blurb about "our sponsors and viewers like you" between shows. They also broadcast over antenna, so you don't even need a cable subscription to watch it (and conveniently, if you only have antenna, you're spared from all the garbage and only get PBS + local news).

That depends. I live in a country where there are public channels (state funded) and private channels. Only the latter show ads.

That’s not what I call “commercial TV”. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a corporate arm, but it’s not for Broadcasting.

Would you care to unpack that? The interesting thing about personal anecdotes is when they provide context as to your experience. How many commercials did you watch a year? Do you have a TV? Do you choose not to any media at all? Only movies? How do you compare your experience to others?

The important point is the list of alternatives you provide yourself: a statement worded in this way "kids on netflix only homes are being saved from 230 hrs of commercials a year" apparently implies two alternatives -- either "netflix only" or "being exposed to 230 hrs of commercials a year". There are, however, a lot more alternatives, and you list some of them.

Please don't just drive by taking potshots at headlines that aren't written the way you want them to be. Read the article. Post something substantive. Engage. Share.

The article doesn't assume that. Those were the results of the study, and it's specific to Iran.